Monday, March 28, 2016

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This followsthis postabout some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!

The new superhero behemoth is the worst of the new movies in theaters
this weekend. Among the others, there are some decent choices.
* Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – Rated PG-13: As I noted in my Thursday review,
this long, confusing bore is a waste of ten-bucks-plus and 2.5 hours of
your life you’ll never recover. It’s an uninteresting, dark, messy
buildup to a short, ridiculous, barely-explained fight between the two
superheroes in the title. Read my complete review.TWO MARXES
* Eye in the Sky – Rated R:
This is a great movie because it does a great job of showing how
liberal bureaucrats and their faux-humanitarian concerns get in the way
of the West fighting Islamic terrorists. It captures that so well that I
highly recommend it (even though it stars the late Jew-hating,
anti-Israel schmuck Alan Rickman, RIH). It’s well-done, even if an
important twist to the plot line is contrived and unlikely. The movie
is also a great indictment of the liberalism that cripples the British
government from being an effective actor (though I think the movie is
far too charitable in making the U.S. look tougher than it actually is
these days, under Barack Obama–and even earlier, under George W. Bush).
Helen Mirren gives her usual excellent performance. Also, with one or
two exceptions, the movie doesn’t hedge on who the enemies are: Islamic
terrorists.
The story: satellite video and intelligence indicate to British
military and government officials that several wanted Islamic terrorists
have been located in Southern Kenya and may be planning a terrorist
attack. A British colonel (Mirren) wants to bomb them immediately, as
does a Brit general (Rickman). But British government officials
repeatedly hem and haw and delay to avoid making the decision to take
lives (even though the lives are those of documented Islamic terrorists
who’ve planned and executed terrorist attacks). The movie explores the
ethics of using drones and shows that with each ridiculous delay, the
situation becomes more and more dangerous and risky.
One particularly liberal (and repulsive) British government official,
a woman, is straight out of ACLU central casting. She objects to
bombing the terrorist location for every reason she can come up with.
First, it’s that the terrorists are not an imminent threat and need to
be captured and given a trial (which isn’t possible). Then, when bomb
vests are shown and it’s obvious a terrorist attack by these individuals
is imminent, the woman insists that because some of the terrorists are
British and American citizens, they cannot be assassinated.
When the decision is finally made to strike, a young Muslim girl is
now outside the compound, selling bread. The girl just so happens to be
the daughter of “enlightened, liberal” Muslim parents who allow her to
play with a hula hoop and learn math, both of which are forbidden by the
local Muslim terrorists controlling the area. This is the
contrivance–in fact, the deceit–of this movie. What are the odds that a
“cute, enlightened, moderate” Muslim girl would be outside a terrorist
compound selling bread? Hint: they aren’t very good odds. In fact,
usually, fellow scumbags and terrorists are outside the terrorist
compound. Or Muslims who morally support the terrorists. Or a Muslim
girl who is taught by her hateful Muslim parents to hate America, not to
hula hoop. And, sadly, the people who run this country often care more
about sparing these America-haters’ lives than our own.
What I think is accurate in this film–in addition to the frustrating
idiocy of liberal government bureaucrats–is that the American military
officers who are to perpetrate the strikes (one of them is played by
Aaron Paul) are very sad and filled with anguish over risking the girl’s
life. Unfortunately, our Muslim enemies have no such humanity or
sympathies.
The movie was nail-biting suspenseful throughout, and incredibly
frustrating. Also, I was fascinated by the technological details (I
hope the enemy doesn’t learn too much from this, if it’s accurate), such
as the mini-drone, made to look like a tiny insect, which is flown
inside the home where the terrorists are meeting and films them. That
was very cool.
I did not like that the movie made it look like American officials
had no problem with the strikes and were very anxious to go forward.
That’s the way it should be, but we know that American liberal policy
under both Obama and Bush actually rules the day. So, we often don’t
effectuate such strikes, to avoid hitting women and children, etc. Take
the opportunity we had to strike Osama Bin Laden under the George W.
Bush Administration. But Bush didn’t want to hit other guests of Bin
Laden–supporters who were Gulf State royalty (as if they had some sort
of innocence or merited protection when they hung out with this murderer
of Americans). Yes, unfortunately, we are often as bad as the British
bureaucrats in this movie.
I also didn’t like that the late friend and enabler of Islamic
terrorism, Alan Rickman, plays a courageous, bold fighter of Islamic
terrorism (with great, tough dialogue, especially at the end of the
film). That’s not irony. It’s BS.
Still, this movie really captured the outrageous, ludicrous
handicaps, nonsense, and frustrations the West needlessly imposes upon
itself in fighting the enemy. And making it an ineffective, losing
fight.THREE REAGANSWatch the trailer . . .

* My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 – Rated PG-13:
To say I didn’t like the original My Big Fat Greek Wedding is an
understatement. So, 14 years later, I expected to hate this sequel.
But, while some of it is really dumb and some of the jokes are gross or
fall flat, I laughed a lot and was mildly entertained by this. It’s not
bad. And, guys, if you must take your significant other to a chick
flick, this is one of the most bearable ones. Plus, where else will you
hear Billy Idol’s “White Wedding” sung in Greek? That said, if I were
Greek or they made a movie like this about Jews, I’d be offended.
While the movie (made by Greeks) is about a traditional, immigrant
Greek family, it could be–like it’s first installment–about any ethnic
immigrant family to America, still green and feeling its way around
American culture, while trying to hold on to old world values, mores,
and idiosyncracies. And about half of the actors playing Greeks in this
movie are Jewish or Italian or from some other ethnic background. SCTV
alumna Andrea Martin, who is of Armenian descent, is the real star of
this, reprising her role as Aunt Voula. She’s hilarious. Without her,
the movie would mostly sink. Also good is Mark Margolis (Margolis is a
Jewish surname, not Greek), whom you might remember from “Breaking Bad”
as the old Mexican gangster in the wheelchair who helps blow up drug
kingpin Gus.
The setting of the movie is nearly two decades after the original
takes place. Toula Portokalos (Nia Vardalos, who also wrote this and,
along with Tom Hanks and his Greek wife Rita Wilson, executive-produced
it) is back. But now, she and her “white bread” American husband Ian
(John Corbett), are the parents of Paris (the beautiful Elena
Kampouris), who is nearly 18 and applying to colleges (all while she is
embarrassed by her “boater” family). Her parents and the rest of the
extended family want her to stay in Chicago. Also, Toula and Ian are
trying to bring back the romance to their marriage. At the same time,
Toula’s parents (Lainie Kazan, also Jewish, and Michael Constantine)
discover that they are not legally married under the Greek Orthodox
church because the priest who married them back in Greece, never signed
the marriage certificate. Now, they must decide if they want to get
married again to make it legit.
Throughout all of this, Aunt Voula (Martin) dispenses her very blunt,
hilarious advice. Also Toula’s dad (Constantine) asserts that
virtually all of Western civilization came from Alexander the Great, and
he tries to prove he’s Alexander’s descendant.
Not a “great” movie, or even the best comedy I’ve ever scene. Not
even close. But it’s light and entertaining, fun stupidity. Relative
to most chick flicks, this one is cute and funny. And you needn’t have
seen the first one to fully appreciate this one.ONE-AND-A-HALF REAGANSWatch the trailer . . .

* Creative Control – Rated R: This independent, low-budget movie is produced by Amazon.com
and Mark Cuban’s Magnolia Pictures. It was not screened for critics, so
I went to see it on my own. It’s high on style, less so on story.
But, still, it does have a slightly interesting concept and story idea,
though the execution of those isn’t as interesting. The movie also
moves slowly with very little payoff at the end. I definitely wouldn’t
pay ten bucks to see this (and didn’t have to–the theater I went to lets
me see movies free, as a member of the Detroit Film Critics Society).
The movie probably isn’t for anyone 60 or over, and it has stark sexual
themes.
This movie takes place in the future in Brooklyn. The movie is
mostly filmed in black and white for a reason: so that virtual reality
features, functions, and AI creations can stand out in color. David
(Benjamin Dickinson, who also wrote and directed this) is an executive
at a pretentious hipster New York ad agency. He and his girlfriend
Juliette (Nora Zehetner), a yoga teacher, are bored and complacent in
their relationship and their lives. David has a thing for his best
friend, Wim’s fashion designer girlfriend Sophie (Alexia Rasmussen).
Wim (Dan Gill) is a fashion photographer and isn’t faithful to Sophie.
He’s cheating on her with the models he shoots.
One day, David is assigned to an account for a company that produces
virtual reality glasses (a la Google glass). He begins using the
glasses and soon creates a female virtual reality lover with the face of
Sophie and the body he himself designs. And the virtual sexual affair
begins. In the meantime, Dan is also trying to have a real-life affair
with Sophie. While she seems slightly receptive, the virtual reality
version is much more receptive.
As Dan has his virtual reality affair with the image created via the
glasses, Dan and his real-life live-in girlfriend Juliette grow apart.
And things being to fall apart for Dan at work and in his social life,
too. Dan is assigned to make an ad campaign for the glasses using
real-life avant-garde hip-hop/soul artist and actor Reggie Watts. But
Watts is all over the place and doesn’t make something that is usable.
Plus Dan, obsessed with his virtual reality life, isn’t on top of
things.
Dan falls further and further into an addiction with his virtual
reality love and it ruins all other aspects of his life. Or does it?
The movie’s sudden ending is fine. I like that kind of thing when
it’s done right. It’s just that this movie wasn’t that great leading up
to the ending. And I felt like, “Is that all there is?” when I walked
out.
Again, the ideas here are interesting (especially as virtual reality
becomes more and more a part of our lives). The execution of those
ideas, not so much.HALF A MARXWatch the trailer . . .

On Tuesday night, I saw Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Rated PG-13),
which is in theaters tonight. And the only “justice” here would be to
give me back that 2.5 hours of my life that I’ll never get back. The
movie is an endless, unremarkable pissing contest between two dull,
miserable characters in capes consumed by a “my penis is bigger than
yours (or maybe yours is bigger than mine)” fight.

I went to the movie wearing a t-shirt that said, “I Like My Men Tall,
Dark, and Batman” (see above). But no longer. I hated this movie, and
I especially hated this Batman–the “adult” spoiled brat Batman played
by “adult” spoiled brat Ben Affleck, who looked very much like an aging
mobster–like his character from the box office bomb, “Gigli,” a couple
of decades later. [BTW, the t-shirt’s a lie. I don’t actually like
Batman. My fave is Supe. But I liked the t-shirt.]
I can’t believe Michigan taxpayers paid through the nose to subsidize
this crappy movie. The money would have been better spent getting the
people of Flint drinkable water. But, instead, bazillions were spent to
make the movie here so one of its stars (I think I know who it is–and
it isn’t Affleck or Henry Cavill) could give some chick an STD and so
that leftist Democrat Senator Debbie Stab-a-cow could be the world’s
most forgettable movie star as the Governor of Metropolis (and I thought
Metropolis was a city, not a state).
Despite a ton of special effects and action, I was bored to tears by
this movie. I even fell asleep twice and missed nothing . . . except
more brooding by every single character in this confusing silver screen
mess. Would it have killed Affleck (Bruce Wayne/Batman) or Henry Cavill
(Clark Kent/Superman) or the self-hating Jewish Israeli
Gal Gadot (Diana Prince/Wonder Woman) to smile even just once? Back in
the day when superhero movies were actually decent, Christopher Reeve
was generally happy. He smiled, he was a smart aleck with a wink, and
you wanted to get to know him. He was likable. These guys aren’t.
They’re a miserable lot–unhappy, suffering (from what, I’d love to
know), and so overstuffed with angst, it made me uncomfortable and
annoyed. But this is what the Millennials want. Hipsters love
suffering, darkness, and feeling bad about something even though they
are the most privileged, spoiled generation in history. The same goes
for these superheroes (who weren’t so super in this; not even close).
They are bored and unhappy, and they like darkness (their costumes,
including that of Wonder Woman are darker than ever). It’s not good
enough to be heroes and have magical superpowers.
So, instead, for some unexplained reason, Bruce Wayne is out to get
Superman, whom he knows is Clark Kent. And for some unexplained reason,
Clark Kent doesn’t like Bruce Wayne, whom he knows is Batman. And Kent
mouths off some stuff about Wayne’s lack of respect for civil
liberties. Huh? Yeah, I had no idea to what he was referring, and I
just didn’t care. Ditto for the bombing of the U.S. Capitol building,
which was jarring to see on the same day that Islamic terrorists bombed
two locations in Brussels. But no worries, there are no Islamic
terrorists in this movie–keeping true to the modern-day “we cannot
identify the real terrorists [Muslims]” rule for superhero movies and,
frankly, almost all Hollywood movies. Instead, it’s some guy in a
wheelchair who lost both his legs when Gotham got attacked by General
Zod and fought with Superman, something that isn’t really explained. It
had to be explained to me by the fanboy sitting next to me, whom I had
to consult during the entire movie.
And that’s the thing: the movie is waaaaay tooo confusing. I had no
idea what was going on at times or who some of the people were
onscreen. You need a fanboy translator at the ready during the entire
movie. I was lucky to have one–and, while I’m usually a movie Nazi who
gets upset when others talk during the movie, I probably bugged everyone
around me with my endless questions to Fanboy Translator.
The only parts of the movie that were clear were Lois Lane’s naked
breasts in the bathtub scene. Little was left to the imagination in the
gratuitous, repeated shots, with only actress Amy Adams’ nipples
missing from the shot. Barely missing. I mean, I know there was a
“love scene” between Margot Kidder and Christopher Reeve in one of the
Superman movies of the past. But in a superhero movie that you know
kids are gonna see, did they need to see most of Amy Adams’ chest?
Oh, and another part of the movie that’s clear: Adams’ Lane is
trapped by terrorists somewhere in Africa (you think they’re Muslim, but
the movie is too chicken and PC to say so). Superman rescues her from
being killed by them, and so he’s the bad guy because of collateral
damage. Congress holds hearings. So typical. But even more typical:
the movie doesn’t take sides on this. Maybe Supe is a bad dude for
causing destruction when fighting terrorists. Barf. Oh, and by the
way, you and I are the bad guys for wanting to deport aliens. You see,
we’re on the same side as the guy they show with the sign calling to
deport aliens like Superman. Haha, funny.
Then, there is Lex Luthor, overplayed by the poorly cast Jesse
Eisenberg. Eisenberg, who once played Facebook dictator Mark
Zuckerberg, plays him here again, on steroids. We all know that if Mark
Zuckerberg could do what he really wants, he’d be even more evil than
he already is. And instead of merely playing online recruiter,
propagandist, and censor for ISIS and Islam, he’d probably spy on
superheroes, pit them against each other using artificial contrivances,
and then create a half-Kryptonian, half-human monster (very bad CGI)
from his own blood to try to kill Superman, as he does in this movie.
Especially if you add in a dash of Nazi collaborator George Soros.
Still, I wasn’t buying it. Eisenberg is probably the worst Lex Luthor
we’ve ever seen in a Superman movie.
The movie doesn’t really tell you who Diana Prince is (you hear her
first name once and you never hear the name “Wonder Woman”). And there
are few scenes of her arguing with Bruce Wayne because she stole some
hard drive from him. Why? No clue. They don’t tell you. Soon, we see
surveillance tapes of many superheroes and comic book characters,
including many not in this movie. I had no idea who they were and the
movie doesn’t say, so, again, I had to consult Fanboy. The tapes, made
by Lex Luthor, show Diana Prince/Wonder Woman getting money from an ATM.
What was the point of this? It was like reading US Magazine and
seeing “Superheroes–They’re Just Like Us! They use the ATM machine.”
Well, I guess they had to give her something to do to fill space in this
2.5-hour cure for insomnia. Yaaawn.
You might compare this movie to bad sex. It builds up for so long to
the unexplained, unjustified fight between Batman and Superman. But
when it finally happens, it lasts just a minute or two and isn’t
exciting. Plus, it’s not believable. Remember, Batman isn’t really a
superhero. He’s not an alien or the result of an experiment gone wrong.
He doesn’t have any superpowers. He’s just a spoiled rich kid in a
pretentious costume and cape. So, in a contest between him and
Superman, who do you think would prevail. Here’s a SPOILER hint: it’s
not logical the way it turns out.
On Monday, I told a friend how excited I was to see this the next
night. He was dismissive and said, “But why are they fighting? That’s
so dumb. It doesn’t make sense.”
After seeing this, my thoughts exactly.
***
At the beginning of this movie, director Zack Snyder told us not to
give away spoilers and ruin the movie for everyone else. But there’s
only one real spoiler, which I had questions about. So I’m putting it on another page. If you want to read it, click here.TWO MARXESWatch the trailer . . .